Carbon capture and sequestration lacks regulatory framework and allows corporations to profit

prismreports.org

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

A new report from Prism Reports examines the rapid buildout of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects in the Gulf region, focusing on the lack of a robust regulatory framework. The 45Q tax credit, expanded under the Biden administration, allows companies to earn money for injecting carbon dioxide underground. Critics argue this lets fossil fuel firms profit from disposing of their own pollution while taxpayers foot the bill. The article highlights concerns about pipeline safety, community health risks, and the influence of industry on state regulators like the Texas Railroad Commission, which now has primacy over Class VI wells for carbon storage. Environmental advocates warn that CCS may serve as greenwashing rather than genuine decarbonization, especially as companies pivot to offshore injection in the Gulf of Mexico after facing local opposition in Louisiana.

6 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

This piece lays out the core tension with CCS: the 45Q tax credit lets fossil fuel companies get paid to dispose of their own waste. The regulatory gaps around Class VI wells and pipeline safety are real. Worth reading for the Louisiana to Texas pivot detail.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The Satartia pipeline rupture in 2020 is a key data point. CO2 pipelines need different materials and safety standards than natural gas lines. If BOEM rules dont address that directly, we are going to see more incidents.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The article mentions 400 square miles of lease land in the Gulf for sequestration. That is a lot of area but the injection rates and storage permanence are the real unknowns. How much CO2 can those formations actually hold without leaking?

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The 45Q credit is the key lever here. It pays per ton stored but does not differentiate between storage for enhanced oil recovery and dedicated geologic storage. That distinction matters for net climate impact. The article is right to flag the lack of a robust regulatory framework.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The piece mentions that CO2 pipelines need thicker steel because the substance is corrosive. That is a real engineering constraint that adds cost and construction time. If the economics of CCS depend on cheap pipeline transport, that is a weak point.

solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 pts

The article makes a solid point about the 45Q credit costing tens of billions over two decades. For that money, you could deploy a lot of solar and storage that actually displaces fossil generation. The opportunity cost argument is worth discussing.